Are background checks necessary?

[Sport45]

If having a a background check done on the buyer makes the seller feel better then by all means they should go through a FFL. They can do that now for a few dollars with little trouble.

But you can't mandate a background check without knowing everyone who is buying a gun and you have to know what gun they're buying so you can track its ownership. Some government agency would have to know WHO owns EVERY gun in America for this to work.

It'll never happen. At least it will never happen effectively no matter who votes for what.

 

[Chris-bob]

I oppose all federal regulation aimed at the people.

 

[gc70]

we can be stubborn and keep our heads in the sand, or we can appear to be (and perhaps actually be) proactive in this regard, offer up real, viable solutions to problems we have.

I agree with this sentiment. But I strongly disagree that simply broadening the scope of mandatory background checks is a viable solution.

There have been nearly a million NICS denials in the system's 14-year history, or around 70,000 a year. There have been roughly 250 prosecutions a year for the law that includes giving false information on a 4473. Is NICS horribly inaccurate or is the government not particularly interested in stopping prohibited persons from trying to buy guns, or possibly both?

As to solutions, I strongly favor more aggressive prosecution of prohibited persons who repeatedly try to buy guns through legitimate channels. I am also in favor of controlled (regarding privacy concerns) NICS access, free or at a nominal cost, to individuals who want to voluntarily have background checks for private transactions.

 

[larryh1108]

I'd rather sane people from the ranks of american gun owners are coming up with answers rather than get them from people who haven't a clue about guns, such as mike bloomberg and diane feinstein,

^^ This

I don't believe that anyone posting here wants any type of new gun laws, or any at all. However, not every American feels the same as we do and if we don't believe these mass killings are sway someone sitting on the fence towards total gun control then we are fooling ourselves. I'd rather be part of the solution than part of the (perceived) problem.

 

[klyph]

I'd rather be part of the (ineffective) solution than part of the (perceived) problem.

FIFY

 

[PedalBiker]

I'd rather be part of the solution than part of the (perceived) problem.

Part of the solution is keeping people informed and thinking rationally.

Enabling stupidity does not solve anything.

I am OK with "background checks" as well, but since they don't really work (see Fast and Furious for example) it just leads to another "non solution".

Politicians are great at divide and conquer. They get us debating amongst ourselves while they consolidate their power. Aside from this discussion; My in laws are a great example, they're totally dependent on SS and medicare and so saw Obama as their savior. When I pointed out how inflation was going to totally hose them they got angry at ME, not the source of the inflation.

 

[1911 guy]

You do realize that we are debating this from the anti-gun viewpoint, right?

Firearms are not the problem. Human nature is the problem. We sit here arguing with one another about what "sensible" gun control is and whether a further infringement of freedom is acceptable because a lot of us have bought into the terms as defined by anti-gunners.

Regulate human nature, the real cause of crime and depravity.

 

[anchorman]

Again, I really dont understand the specific demonizing of guns. THat there should be laws specific to guns but not...cars or pools or matches or knives or...? It is a parent's responsibility to keep their child safe period. And if they do not....is it a criminal offense? Or only a criminal offense when a gun is involved?

It's not demonizing guns, it's respecting the fact that they are instruments of death. That's their point, and I'm not going to act like that's a bad thing, but they deserve a little more respect and a special treatment in our lives than other objects because of this. With rights come responsibilities. We have the right to use these tools to defend ourselves, but we also have the responsibility to use them carefully and wisely and as a last resort. I hope that's something most of us here can respect.

 

[anchorman]

You do realize that we are debating this from the anti-gun viewpoint, right?

Firearms are not the problem. Human nature is the problem. We sit here arguing with one another about what "sensible" gun control is and whether a further infringement of freedom is acceptable because a lot of us have bought into the terms as defined by anti-gunners.

Regulate human nature, the real cause of crime and depravity.

I'm not sure how mandating background checks is anti-gun, or regulating the gun. It is not a ban, it is not telling law abiding citizens that they can't exercise their right to bear arms. Background checks are, in fact, an attempt to regulate humans. I'm still baffled by people elsewhere in this thread who think that calling in a background check somehow requires a database of all guns to be effective (it doesn't), and how if something is not guaranteed to be 100% effective, we shouldn't bother with it.

Maybe the NRA could come out for universal background checks on all sales in exchange for repeal of the NFA, GCA, and hughes amendments? (unlikely, but a guy can dream).

 

[1911 guy]

So what else are you proposing background checks for? Cars? license to operate heavy equipment? Should we do checks on people who want to go into a bar and drink? Or maybe sale at a liquor store, even.

No, and nobody else is, either. People want background checks for gun buyers and a check on ANYTHING else (except for some career choices) is deemed an infringement or presumption of guilt. So why are we supposed to be in such a hurry to accept it as "reasonable" when no other group is clamoring for it?

Answer: People are still debating from the standpoint of guns being the problem.

If I really thought, for even one serious minute, that background checks would lower crime rates, I'd be for it. But the cold hard facts are just the opposite. They do NOTHING to stop criminals from being criminals and merely inconvenience the law abiding, often adding cost to purchases.

 

[anchorman]

if a background check is a presumption of guilt, how are they not a presumption of guilt for people in those career choices that require background checks? I don't see them as a presumption of guilt so much as an inquiry into whether one is allowed to do something or not. Presumption of guilt would be telling a person with no criminal or mental illness history that they can't have any guns since they might use them to murder someone. since we have people of the streets who have given up many of their rights of citizenship, checking their status as a prohibited person doesn't seem so crazy in certain instances.

 

[leadcounsel]

I know someone (namely a moron) who honestly believes the following:

1. Nobody should have to show an ID to vote in an election because it's "oppressive and discriminatory" and that poor people can't get IDs.

2. Nobody should be allowed to own guns except "military and police" - not even common handguns and rifles.

And this guy is a Major in the United States Army! Unbelievable...


As for my beliefs, I used to think background checks were wise. I no longer believe that. Criminals are going to get guns, period - straw purchases and thefts and private sales easily circumvent background checks. I am completely unwilling to be forced to lock my guns up 24-7 and be prevented from private sales. So there's no reasonable way to resolve this issue.

Background checks, therefore, merely add an additional red tape and expense layer in the process.

I also believe that once you serve your penalty, then you should have your rights restored.

BTW, people bent on murder find other ways. The worst mass murders in America were done with dynamite (Michigan School early in the 1900s), fertilizer truck bomb (Oklahoma), and box cutters (9/11). Even without a gun, it wouldn't take much creativity to commit a mass murder with everyday things you can buy at Home Depot (chainsaws, hammers, propane tanks, machetes, nails, etc.).

 

[1911 guy]

That's just it. Even with background checks for jobs or security clearances, there IS a presumption of guilt. Either refuse to submit to a check or something comes back incomplete, much less derrogatory information, you don't get the job or clearance. The assumption is that you have done something to warrant denial.

So are you willing to embrace background checks for sales at a liquor store? Just to make sure you don't have any previous DUI. Or even a suspicion of it, actually.

When you buy your next car, your driving record will determine if you are safe enough to operate a vehicle on our roads. Certain types of infractions are disqualifying and a given number of other infractions combined are disqualifying.

See where this goes? Most people want to stop thinking at the desired conclusion. Carry the principle out to its final end and you have a situation that everyone must submit to a check for everything and everyone is denied because the checks are designed to ensure maximum safety, not maximum correctness or results.

 

[leadcounsel]

dupe

 

[larryh1108]

So are you willing to embrace background checks for sales at a liquor store? Just to make sure you don't have any previous DUI. Or even a suspicion of it, actually.

When you buy your next car, your driving record will determine if you are safe enough to operate a vehicle on our roads. Certain types of infractions are disqualifying and a given number of other infractions combined are disqualifying

We keep comparing guns to autos, liquor, etc. Owning a gun is not the same. Why?
Well, the main purpose of the auto is for transportation. Sometimes they kill.
The main purpose of alcohol is to get buzzed. Some people die from drinking too much.
The main purpose of a handgun is to kill another human being, maybe another animal.
Difference here?

People who compare driving rights to gun rights amaze me.
You are right, though, it is not the gun but the idiot behind it.
The same goes for the driver of the automobile and the guy behind the booze bottle.
However, the gun was made to kill. The others were not.
Not the same thing.
Not the same page.
Not the same book.

 

[9MMare]

if a background check is a presumption of guilt, how are they not a presumption of guilt for people in those career choices that require background checks? I don't see them as a presumption of guilt so much as an inquiry into whether one is allowed to do something or not. Presumption of guilt would be telling a person with no criminal or mental illness history that they can't have any guns since they might use them to murder someone. since we have people of the streets who have given up many of their rights of citizenship, checking their status as a prohibited person doesn't seem so crazy in certain instances.

What a private business chooses to demand is their right. Just like employers can demand that you do not carry in the workplace.

 

[splattergun]

I dont mean to be rude or insensitive, but is that the price of freedom? One life?

Or, 3? Or, how many? I think it's a legitimate question.

Please see my signature for my opinion (2nd one).

What is the price of "safety"... one soveriegn right? three? All of them?

Evil people always have, and always will, take advantage of the weak. People die when this happens. Only strength can hope to stem the flow. Europeans and those Americans who have been baited to believe the lie that government can keep people safe, think that the murder rate in the US can be totally blamed on legal gun ownership. So they trot out the statistics of thousands dead to prove their illusion.

On the other hand, in Europe and elsewhere in the past century, literally MILLIONS of innocent, unarmed, defenseless people have been murdered by evil leaders and governments. Armed citizens do not become victims of evil governments.

How many innocents must die before the insanity of official civilian disarmament stops?

 

[9MMare]

We keep comparing guns to autos, liquor, etc. Owning a gun is not the same. Why?
Well, the main purpose of the auto is for transportation. Sometimes they kill.
The main purpose of alcohol is to get buzzed. Some people die from drinking too much.
The main purpose of a handgun is to kill another human being, maybe another animal.
Difference here?

People who compare driving rights to gun rights amaze me.
You are right, though, it is not the gun but the idiot behind it.
The same goes for the driver of the automobile and the guy behind the booze bottle.
However, the gun was made to kill. The others were not.
Not the same thing.
Not the same page.
Not the same book.

Self defense is not the same as killing. And people that drive a car buy it with the intention of using it. People who buy guns for self-defense train "under controlled circumstances" but generally hope NOT to use it.

It's like having fire insurance or having fire drills for your family or teaching your kids not to get into cars with strangers. It is not in frequent *use*.

People in this country have the right to protect their lives (right to life) and the right to own and bear firearms. So yes...that is different than owning a car. You have much more justification for owning the gun than the car.

The 2A is very specific about our right to own and bear arms. They are plainly a deterrant to someone....foreign or domestic...taking away all our other Constitutional Rights.

 

[thorazine]

If I wanted a background check or a bill of sale I would have went to a FFL.


Private party terms,

Cash and carry.

No bill of sale please.

I have no problem flashing a drivers license and or concealed carry license but don't go writing anything down and I won't do same.

 

[1911 guy]

So apparently we have a contingent on this board who genuinely believe that guns really ARE the cause of crime. Because they have no ther purpose but to kill and cause mayhem, right.

You have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to tell you you're wrong. You've stopped thinking when you reached the desired conclusion, rather than following your process to its conclusion.

 

[larryh1108]

So apparently we have a contingent on this board who genuinely believe that guns really ARE the cause of crime. Because they have no ther purpose but to kill and cause mayhem, right.

So, let's analyze this. You are making your own statement on how we feel and then tell us we're wrong because this fictious statement is in conflict with your own feelings. Really good. Ever consider working for the antis? You have their MO down pat. Guns are made for killing. Please show me where I have said or anyone else has said that guns are the cause of crime other than in your own mind. You are delusional.

 

[gc70]

My guns are made to shoot - anything beyond that is entirely up to me.

 

[1911 guy]

No, I am merely carrying your logic to its conclusion, something you fail to do in post after post. You stop at a desired and predetermined conclusion, without regard to the underlying principle of your thought process.

 

[larryh1108]

No, I am merely carrying your logic to its conclusion, something you fail to do in post after post. You stop at a desired and predetermined conclusion, without regard to the underlying principle of your thought process.

Exactly. You are telling me what I am thinking because of your own twisted views. You cannot argue that guns were designed to kill. Therefore, you assume that means we blame the guns instead of the person behind the gun. How you come to that conclusion is of your own imagination, not anything we stated.

I can conclude that you feel we should ban all guns because in the hands of someone bent on killing other people, we can't stop them so we should just eliminate guns from the equation. You aren't saying it's the guns but the person who uses it so I conclude you wish to ban all types of guns to keep us safe. I can make up stuff as easily as you can. It doesn't make it right.

 

[1911 guy]

Your deliberate obtuseness is either amazing or admirable, I can't decide which.

I have discovered, yet again, that my old man was right about something. You can't argue with a fool. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.

What I don't understand, Larry, is your position. You seem to waffle all over, from a serious pro-gun to almost completely anti-gun, claiming they have no legitimate purpose.

Whenever you make up your mind, I'm willing to debate again. Until then, practice your critical thinking skills. We'll all need to be sharp when the time comes to actually debate the antis. Right now, we're sniping at each other.