It seems that in this particular situation, if all the private gun sellers had not uniformly chosen to deny this person a gun purchase because of his language skills, an expanded background-check requirement actually would have worked to keep guns out of his hands at this gun show.
How do you know a background check would have denied him a purchase? I see no evidence shown that he was a prohibited person in any way, just that his English skills were poor and that maybe he was frustrated by that.
That's a reason for him to be denied?
See that's the problem with this. You're assuming the background checks work some kind of magic, accurately predicting who will commit crime with a gun.
But since 1993, when the Brady Law went into effect, background checks have been a complete failure.
Why exactly would MORE of something that doesn't work all of a sudden start to work?
I go to alot of gun shows and i watch alot of privet sales. very few will even "ask" the buyer if they are a state res. most just say give me money,hand them the gun and walk away. now im not for closeing the "gun show loop hole" but i do think we as gun owners need to be moore thoughtful in our privet sales.
Apply this to any other private property sale and see how absurd it sounds.
If you sell an airplane do you ask if the buyer plans to run drugs in it? Do you ask if he has a pilots license?
If you sell a car do you ask the buyer if he plans to use it in a bank robbery?
If you sell a crowbar do you ask the buyer if he plans to break into houses with it?
What the buyer does is the buyers problem, and if the buyer intends to break the law then the law will deal with that person.
What all of you are saying is that since there are some criminals in the world then none of us can be trusted to buy property without some kind of "permission".
I don't get it.