Are background checks necessary?

[SuperNaut]

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.

Without the operator the design is meaningless. It is an inanimate object imbued with no special powers. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

 

[45_auto]

However, the gun was made to kill.

Interesting theory. In the real world, a gun is a machine made to expel an article or substance. You have any stats on recent deaths from Nerf guns or water guns or paint guns or potato guns or nail guns or BB guns or pellet guns? Were the people who made them to kill just too stupid to know that they wouldn't do a very good job?

The particle gun we use at work for research weighs about 50 tons and uses a sealed tube. Couldn't hurt anyone with it if I wanted to. Is it just a bad design since it won't kill?

Or does your definition of a gun just include those machines that shoot lead projectiles, like maybe single shot .22 rifles?

 

[CapnMac]

Well, the main purpose of the auto is for transportation. Sometimes they kill.

As a matter of fact, it's more than "sometimes". It's about 10 times--an order of magnitude--more than all "gun killings" in the US every year. Only heat/pulmonary disease kills more than automobiles.

The problem with these debates is that the emotional component gets in the way. Mass shootings occur even less frequently than aircraft crashes. School mass shootings are less common than death by lightning strike or shark attack.

A background check is really only as good as the database of individuals within it. Just check the the threads here at THR, numerous innocent people are denied by federal instant check system.

We already have more laws than any reasonable person can be expected to know, comprehend, and thus, obey. If the mere presence of a law were enough, no red lights would be run; no speeding would occur, and so on.

 

[larryh1108]

I agree, 1911guy. However, all I am stating and have stated is that firearms were designed to kill. That is the beginning, middle and end of that statement. We, as a gun community, cannot dispute that but we can state that how we use them determines who we are. We are civilized and use firearms for sport, for food, for protection. We use them as the tools they are. Firearms are no more evil than the hammer or saw or any other tool which were designed for reasons other than killing but can kill as surely as a firearm.

I have a nice collection of firearms. To me, they are tools. I believe that the 1911 is a work of art and it is, by far, my most favorite type of firearm. However, even you can't deny that the 1911 was designed and then produced to kill. That does not make them evil. I can use mine to shoot at paper, cans, balloons or bowling pins. I can use them to shoot steel or berms or anything inanimate. I can also use it to defend myself or my family. I can also use it to commit mass carnage. To deny it is a weapon designed to kill is the same as pretending the antis don't want our guns, that they just want "a little" control. BS, They won't be happy until every gun in America is destroyed. Firearms were designed and produced to kill but that does not mean that's what we use them for. I know that I have not killed a single thing with mine. I hope I never have to. Until then I will continue to shred paper and other useless objects. Guns aren't evil. Guns don't kill people. Guns aren't the root of all evil but I do know they were designed and produced to kill. Does that make me anti-gun? Seriously?

 

[Warp]

I haven't read the thread, but...

Although I don't push it and don't argue the point, I disagree with background checks being required.

Think about it. What we are saying is that people have proven, through past actions, that they are not to be trusted because we believe they might commit violent crimes, they might hurt people, and they might kill people. Yet we trust them to walk around free in society? ...really? And we think making a law against them having a gun will keep them from preying on innocent people? Really?

That's just asinine. We, gun owners and 2A supporters, commonly mock these gun control laws and post memes that say things like "Tell me more about how criminals follow laws".

If a person is able to be free in society, they ought to have their Constitutionally protected rights. They ought to be able to have a gun. They ought to be able to vote. They ought to be able to have a trial by a jury of their peers. They ought to have right to legal counsel. Etc.

 

[9MMare]

As a matter of fact, it's more than "sometimes". It's about 10 times--an order of magnitude--more than all "gun killings" in the US every year. Only heat/pulmonary disease kills more than automobiles.

Food kills

 

[larryh1108]

You have any stats on recent deaths from Nerf guns or water guns or paint guns or potato guns or nail guns or BB guns or pellet guns? Were the people who made them to kill just too stupid to know that they wouldn't do a very good job?

Ahhh, the semantics game. Very funny. Ha.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that nerf guns, water guns, staple guns, pellet guns and/or any other type of machine with the word gun it is was around in the 12th century when the first known firearms were discovered/invented. I bet that in the 12th century, someone figured out how to shoot whatever it could find into paper targets for fun and sport. I'm sure JMB developed the 1911 because he saw the need for better mechanics to punch paper at the local range. Come on guys, who are you kidding with these play on words. If you feel my statement is wrong then please share with all of us why firearms were designed and produced in the first place. To shoot pretend birds? Tin cans? Maybe they were produced to kill game for food? Wait, kill game for food.... interesting concept.

 

[klyph]

This is getting off topic.

 

[harrygunner]

When one thinks about why the Second Amendment exists, background checks go against its reason for being.

Someone fighting a tyrannical government would be branded a criminal and through background check, denied access to tools to fight that tyrannical government.

 

[larryh1108]

Agree. We have another thread for this latest off topic topic.

It seems that the majority of posters here feel background checks are not necessary nor do they achieve their intended purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys or mentally deficient persons.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

A gun is made to kill.

For the sake of argument, say we embrace that semantic peddled by anti-gunners. Why are so many people freaked out? How does that water down our position? Why should that change the conceptual idea that self-defense and defense against tyranny are legitimate and guaranteed concepts of a free society?

It doesn't change a thing. You aren't charged with the crime of "guns" when you kill someone. You're charged with homicide, justifiable or otherwise.

 

[gc70]

It seems that the majority of posters here feel background checks are not necessary nor do they achieve their intended purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys or mentally deficient persons.

I get a different sense from the 200+ comments in this discussion. Yes, there is a lot of resistance to mandating the expansion of a system that is deficient because the government has not put any real effort into making it efficient and effective. But there is little objection to the stated purpose of the system and many have stated they would (or do) voluntarily take steps to achieve that purpose, even though they were opposed to it being required.

 

[1911 guy]

But there is a vast difference in choosing to do something and being forced at the point of a sword. I choose to give to charities. I resent my tax dollars being forcibly taken from me to support causes I do not support. I choose to go to church. I am opposed to being forced to go, forced to stay home, or forcing anyone to conform to my particular faith.

Do not confuse choosing something with being forced to do something.

 

[larryh1108]

If we (the gun community) feel that we should keep firearms out of the hands of certain individuals (violent ex-cons, mentally infirm, etc) then I'd like the gun community to come up with a viable solution, not some Washington idiot who has another agenda. We need the solutions to come from the people who it affects the most, us.

If you do not feel we have an obligation to keep firearms from anybody, no matter what, then that is a separate discussion and that could untimately leave it up to the people who are anti-gun to decide and it will affect us all. No matter how we feel, I'd like any solution to come from within. I do not want any politician who has no interest in preserving our rights to decide what our rights are. That is what they are trying to do unless we come up with a viable solution.

 

[klyph]

I do not want any politician who has no interest in preserving our rights to decide what our rights are. That is what they are trying to do unless we come up with a viable solution.

Are you suggesting that our rights are dependant upon solving the problem of violent crime? If so, our rights are toast.

 

[Warp]

If we (the gun community) feel that we should keep firearms out of the hands of certain individuals (violent ex-cons, mentally infirm, etc) then I'd like the gun community to come up with a viable solution, not some Washington idiot who has another agenda. We need the solutions to come from the people who it affects the most, us.

Keep them locked up.

If they cannot be trusted with a gun because they might go murder people, and this lack of trust is fully justified through conviction of violent crimes by a jury of their peers (your violent ex-con example), they are not to be free in society as they are too dangerous. Period.

Pretending that ANYTHING that could be done would actually accomplish this is stupid/doomed to failure/a complete wast of time and resources.

Seriously, I think it would be about as successful as the war on drugs/criminalization of marijuana/prohibition

If you do not feel we have an obligation to keep firearms from anybody, no matter what, then that is a separate discussion and that could untimately leave it up to the people who are anti-gun to decide and it will affect us all. No matter how we feel, I'd like any solution to come from within. I do not want any politician who has no interest in preserving our rights to decide what our rights are. That is what they are trying to do unless we come up with a viable solution.

And you think the politicians will listen to people posting on a message forum? lol

Nothing that is Constitutional has even a slimmer of a hope of working at all

 

[1911 guy]

Viable solution to what, exactly? Let's begun there. What is the root problem that you think gun control will solve?

 

[Warp]

Viable solution to what, exactly? Let's begun there. What is the root problem that you think gun control will solve?

Excellent question.

Let's very clearly (and preferably quantitatively) define the problem.

 

[larryh1108]

I do not feel gun control will solve a single thing.
I am not for anything that will take away what we already have.
I feel it is already too restrictive as it is and any further "controls" will make it worse.

This thread has asked if an NICS check is necessary. It is already in place for any purchase thru an FFL. Is this enough to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them? Right now the answer is no. Would closing the "gun show loophole" make it harder for the wrong people to get guns? Maybe, but it won't solve the problems we have now.

So, as "the gun community" is there anything we can come up with to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them? Personally, I can't think of anything that will work. I've read countless threads here and other places that say the same thing, they'll find a way to get a gun if they really want one. So, we can't offer anything to help our cause other than "no"?

For conversation only, if the CT shooter's mother did not have any guns at home (or anywhere) would he have found a way to find a gun or would he have used a bomb or another way of killing? I say he would have found another way to do his carnage but you can't convince the antis of this. They blame the guns. They blame the gun community. They blame the NRA.

I hope that we still have the necessary votes to keep them from advancing their causes. If there is a viable solution I'd sure like to hear it. It's frustrating to think that our rights are in the hands of a few politicians who have their own agendas to think about.

Are you suggesting that our rights are dependant upon solving the problem of violent crime? If so, our rights are toast.

Don't believe, for one second, that this isn't a possibility. Probable? Doubtful, but there are those out there that are determined to make it happen. It's up to us to make sure it doesn't happen. Offering helpful suggestions may help but I can't think of any that the gun community would embrace.

 

[1911 guy]

Again, I'm confused. You're busting our chops in post #214 for not having answers, but then say there are no good answers. When allowed to "wing it", you seem to be in favor of more gun control if it will be percieved as helping. But when challenged, you agree it won't help. Forgive me if I seem a bit confused about your position. One minute I think you're a blithering idiot, the next I agree with you.

Noting that you are from Connetticut, I can understand if you have somewhat mixed feeling right now. Just be aware that feelings make for bad decision makers.

Maybe this is where everyone who is yet undecided is working out their own real world positions because this is the first time they've had to contemplate a ban that affected them. Dunno. Just musing to myself.

 

[gc70]

So, as "the gun community" is there anything we can come up with to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them?

As long as you are willing to let the gun control crowd define the issue by posing an unanswerable question, there is no solution.

 

[klyph]

...people who should not have them...

The right of the people... shall not be infringed.

You can have one or the other but not both.

 

[larryh1108]

Again, I'm confused. You're busting our chops in post #214 for not having answers, but then say there are no good answers.

Totally, 100% correct.
I'm not busting anyone's chops. I am stating a fear that if we don't come up with a solution, or at least a viable option, then "they" will find one for us. I do not have the right answer. Like most people here, I don't think anything needs to be done because it's been proven that more controls do nothing.

However, just because I have no answer doesn't mean there isn't one. These forums are filled with people far more brilliant than I am. We have doctors, lawyers, LEOs, military, CEOs, CFOs, MBAs and any number of letters you can imagine. I still say that any possible solution has to come from within or they will force their idea of control down our throats. The fence sitters are now leaning the wrong way due to recent tragedies.

Politicians may get 1000 emails, letters and phone calls from us telling them to not vote for any controls but they may also get 1001 emails, letters and phone calls from previously ambivalent people who are parents of small children who believe the lies from newscasts, football analysts, columnists, priests, school administrators and everyone else who feels something needs to be done.

We know there is nothing that can be done to stop these mass killings. We know that the chances of a mass killer killing one of us is almost infinitessimal but there is a strong and vocal faction that feel that it is the gun that is evil. There is a huge propoganda campaign going on right now against gun owners and our gun rights and all we can come up with is no? Put guards in our schools. Have teachers carry. That will fix the problem. Well, I believe there is nothing to fix but it is not me we have to convince. We have to convince a percentage of the population that is being brainwashed by biased news reporters, bloggers, columnists and many other public figures. The President, himself, has professed change. Unfortunately, he was voted into office a second time. That means more than half of the people support him. If that many follow his lead because he is The Man then where will we stand when the dust clears? Did the campaign "Just Say No" work for the drug wars from the 80s? What makes you think it will work now?

 

[Sport45]

If we (the gun community) feel that we should keep firearms out of the hands of certain individuals (violent ex-cons, mentally infirm, etc) then I'd like the gun community to come up with a viable solution, not some Washington idiot who has another agenda. We need the solutions to come from the people who it affects the most, us.

People who are recognized to be a danger to society should not be free to do their damage. The weapon they might choose is not important.

We know we can't control anyone's access to firearms through laws. What the law does is allow prosecution after the fact.

You can't know that one of these individuals does not have a firearm unless you know where every firearm is. That ain't happening, no matter what anybody wants.

Lock up or execute the individuals who should not be free to impart their ill will on society. Recognize the Charles Mansons of the world for who they really are.

So no, I do not think mandatory background checks answer anything. About all they really accomplish is making the seller feel good.

 

[9MMare]

But there is a vast difference in choosing to do something and being forced at the point of a sword. I choose to give to charities. I resent my tax dollars being forcibly taken from me to support causes I do not support. I choose to go to church. I am opposed to being forced to go, forced to stay home, or forcing anyone to conform to my particular faith.

Do not confuse choosing something with being forced to do something.

x2

...................