Are background checks good or bad?

[ArfinGreebly]

Dr. Peter V.

You do realize, of course, that the victim of a violent crime -- say, robbery, kidnapping, aggravated battery, and so on -- won't really care whence came the gun down whose barrel he currently gazes through his saucer-sized eyes.

He really won't give a damn whether the gun was stolen, bought legally, or bought on the black market.

"Preventing the crook from getting it legally" is pointless.

He's currently pointing one at Harry Homeowner, and Harry really cares not at all about its source.

Forget "getting it legally."

The background check doesn't KEEP HIM FROM GETTING IT.

 

[ilbob]

I guess at some level I am in favor of making it harder for the bad guys to get guns. However, how much inconvenience should us law abiding citizens have to endure under the nebulous idea that we can somehow affect criminal behavior by annoying non-criminals.

We already have de facto registration of every gun sold legally in this country, you have to have a government issued license just to sell the things in the first place? You can't sell to a guy who lives across the street from you because he lives in another state. None of these steps have had any effect whatsoever at reducing crime. maybe it is time to rethink them.

 

[rbernie]

Bernie, I read your stats and I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

You conveniently bypassed quoting this one:

Fifty-six percent of the violent felons convicted in the nation's 75 most populous counties from 1990 through 2002 had a prior conviction record, 38 percent had a prior felony conviction and 15 percent had been previously convicted for a violent felony, according to a new study released today by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

So less than forty percent of all violent felons in prison during this survey had PRIOR disqualifying felony records. Hardly seems to provide a rationale that making it harder for a FELON to obtain a weapon via legal means will make much of an impact, seing as how sixty plus percent of violent felons were potentially legal in the eyes of the BATFE at the time of their felony conviction.

You also bypassed this one:

* In 2005 U.S. attorney offices accepted for prosecution 135 NICS denial cases investigated by ATF.

So, dispite the denial of sixty seven THOUSAND purchases by the FBI in 2005, only one hundred and thirty five of those rejections were worthy of Federal prosecution.

I want you to explain to me how the Brady background check has ANY value in keeping the Bad Guys from getting firearms when there were only 135 demonstrated EFFORTS in 2005 to charge anyone with illegally trying to obtain a firearm based upon a Brady denial.

The Brady check didn't demonstrably KEEP but 135 folk from getting a firearm. It didn't PUNISH the vast preponderance of the sixty seven THOUSAND denied individuals for trying to violate Federal law. It simply turned a whole bunch of folks away.

As the stats YOU quoted clearly indicate, all it did was drive their efforts into the use of strawman purchases via friends/family or outright illegal street buys.

Is that your definition of success?

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

You do realize, of course, that the victim of a violent crime -- say, robbery, kidnapping, aggravated battery, and so on -- won't really care whence came the gun down whose barrel he currently gazes through his saucer-sized eyes.

Yes I do.

He really won't give a damn whether the gun was stolen, bought legally, or bought on the black market.

All that matters is that there is a gun in his face.

"Preventing the crook from getting it legally" is pointless.

No, it is not pointless. A lack of background check will make it even easier for thugs to waltz in and buy whatever they want without having to committ a crime; unless of course you are for keeping certain laws on possesion of firearms on the books. From the gist of the thread I don't see this as the case.

The background check doesn't KEEP HIM FROM GETTING IT.

The background check makes it a crime for him to possess a firearm, unless of course you wish to repeal other gun laws pertaining to who can or cannot own firearms.

He's currently pointing one at Harry Homeowner, and Harry really cares not at all about its source.

The background check doesn't KEEP HIM FROM GETTING IT.

Non-sequitur. "Harry the Homeowner" should not be worried about where the gun was acquired at that moment, only that he has a gun in his face. If I stuck the muzzle end of my SKS between your eyes you would not care how I acquired it during that duration of time, only that I had it in between your eyes.

The background check prevents criminals who should not possess firearms from obtaining them legally. It stops (or should stop) crooks from waltzing into a gunshop and purchasing a firearm when they have no legal right to do so. I believe I have yet to see you argue that certain people should not have guns with the current system. I only see you proposing scrapping background checks all together at the current moment without changing the criminal justice system first.

You conveniently bypassed quoting this one:

My mistake.

So less than forty percent of all violent felons in prison during this survey had PRIOR disqualifying felony records. Hardly seems to provide a rationale that making it harder for a FELON to obtain a weapon via legal means will make much of an impact, seing as how sixty plus percent of violent felons were potentially legal in the eyes of the BATFE at the time of their felony conviction.

That's a misleading statistic. There are misdemeanors that disqualify for firearm ownership as well.

So, dispite the denial of sixty seven THOUSAND purchases by the FBI in 2005, only one hundred and thirty five of those rejections were worthy of Federal prosecution.

I want you to explain to me how the Brady background check has ANY value in keeping the Bad Guys from getting firearms when there were only 135 demonstrated EFFORTS in 2005 to charge anyone with illegally trying to obtain a firearm based upon a Brady denial.

Both you and myself do not know the individual circumstances of the denials. that being said, that is only on a federal level. I do not see anything referenced on the state level.

The Brady check didn't demonstrably KEEP but 135 folk from getting a firearm. It didn't PUNISH the vast preponderance of the sixty seven THOUSAND denied individuals for trying to violate Federal law. It simply turned a whole bunch of folks away.

Misleading. These statistics do not state whether or not the individuals ultimately received the firearm.

As the stats YOU quoted clearly indicate, all it did was drive their efforts into the use of strawman purchases via friends/family or outright illegal street buys.

All of which will lead to a sentence enhancement (hopefully) when the individual is caught committing a crime.

Is that your definition of success?

I can only assume that making it easier for criminals to access firearms would not make things any better. I see a lack of background checks doing just that. Further, I also see a lack of background checks effectively halting certain people from obtaining firearms by legal means when they have none.

As I have stated before, I will state it again: until people who should not be allowed to own firearms are still locked up, whether in a mental health facility, or in a prison, there should be background checks.

and if you were a crook, would you rob or burglarize someone for their gun? or would you go down to the store to get it if you could?

I would go down to the store and make a purchase. In the event that I was caught (assuming owning of said firearm is illegal), I would only be guilty of illegal firearm posession, not Residential Burglary and Grand Theft. On top of this, I would not have to worry about attempting to burglarize when I know the homeowner to be a gun owner. Instead of comitting potentially three felonies, I've committed only one.

either way they are going to get it, it can easily be said that background checks increase the motive for crime. you arent taking your arguments to their logical conclusion, instead relying on the purely emotionally driven response of "they keep them from getting them legally". does it really matter how they get them? the fact is that they do get them.

Criminals are deterred from committing crime if they believe their potential victim to be armed. I can only logically conclude that making it easier for criminals to obtain guns means that more criminals will have guns.

 

[Soybomb]

The background check makes it a crime for him to possess a firearm, unless of course you wish to repeal other gun laws pertaining to who can or cannot own firearms.

Why can you not make it a crime for a felon to be in possession of a gun without background checks? You can make his actions illegal either way. And I would to the 2nd part but seems to be neither here nor there.

The background check prevents criminals who should not possess firearms from obtaining them legally.

But in the end all you've done is hassle a bunch of law abiding citizens and not prevented a criminal from getting a gun. Where is the positive you are seeing?

All of which will lead to a sentence enhancement (hopefully) when the individual is caught committing a crime.

Why not just makes the sentencing for violent crimes committed with a firearm more strict if thats what you want? It seems like you're taking a long road with a lot of side effects on the innocents to get to a destination with a much simpler route.

I can only logically conclude that making it easier for criminals to obtain guns means that more criminals will have guns.

Do you have any evidence at all that shows that background checks keep criminals from getting guns? I certainly can't find any or think of any parallels to it. I imagine you'd laugh in my face if I said our billion dollar war on drugs kept people from being able to get pot, why are guns different?

 

[The Unknown User]

Ideally, anyone would be able to purchase a firearm. But, I live in reality, and the reality of the situation is that if you have a history, or probable intent to use a firearm maliciously, you shouldn't be sold a firearm.

I am an upstanding citizen. I don't break laws. I don't put others at risk. To suggest that it's okay for one who has the intent to put me or others like me at risk is ridiculous. Nobody has the right to put me at risk. If that means one has to lose a right in the name of my safety, then so be it. Too bad.

So yes, if you're mentally unstable, have committed violent acts in the past, or have committed a felony, I don't feel safe with you having a firearm. Maybe next time you'll think before committing such acts again.

Edit: So yes, I fully support background checks. I support waiting periods. Hell, I love the draconian MA laws. I can wait for my firearms.

 

[Gord]

Just a few more things to add, and then I go back to lurking:

First off - arguing that background checks are ineffective because only a few felons actually set it off is remarkably shaky logic. What that demonstrates is that the vast majority of criminals realize the futility of even trying, hence they don't. Ergo, it works as designed.

A lot of the proposed "remedies" include a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system to serve our means. That isn't going to happen anytime soon - and until it does, a background check system is the best compromise I can think of. If you don't like the word "compromise" then feel free to waste your time and effort lobbying for an instant repeal of all firearms law; the sensible amongst us will instead work on actually getting things done incrementally.

Comparing background checks to the War on Drugs™ is a non sequitur - but if we're going to compare apples to oranges, why not just sell crack right alongside the guns? After all, criminals will just get their crack from a black-market dealer or a family member anyway.

 

[buzz_knox]

The background check makes it a crime for him to possess a firearm, unless of course you wish to repeal other gun laws pertaining to who can or cannot own firearms.

There are already laws on the books criminalizing possession of a firearm by felons, those convicted of domestic battery, or those under restraining orders without regard to any issues of background checks.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Prohibit vs Prevent

The background check makes it a crime for him to possess a firearm, unless of course you wish to repeal other gun laws pertaining to who can or cannot own firearms.

The dude's planning a burglary, a robbery, a rape, a kidnapping, a murder, or something else violent.

You don't honestly think that a) he cares, or that b) it even matters that obtaining the gun is also a crime.

He gets caught and convicted, the gun possession beef is the least of his worries.

I see this continued insistence that the background check is supposed to stop, retard, or at least inconvenience criminals.

What it actually does is provide one more barrier for honest people. And that will actually stop, retard, or inconvenience honest people because they actually care what the law says, and don't want to violate it.

The background check isn't there for the criminals. That's a lie. Always has been.

The background check is there to keep YOU, and honest people like you, from owning a gun by providing another barrier that will exceed the willingness threshold of a significant portion of the honest population.

And, hey, if they manage to snare a criminal who's a complete idiot in the process, then they can light that one up in neon and wave it about, "proving" that the system works.

Argument: Well, if we did away with the background check, there would be more violent crime.
Rebuttal: There was LESS violent crime before we started the background checks.

It's not working.

Except inasmuch as its objective is to mess with honest people.

 

[The Unknown User]

Sorry Arfin, but I don't agree with criminals being able to legally obtain their firearms to use maliciously.

I don't intend to imply that background checks actually prevent crime, as crime in itself is a given of society, in to be blunt, nothing will ever completely stop it.

Saying a background check is there to prevent honest people from legally obtaining a firearm is just a clever spin on the situation.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Specifically Targeted Rights

Sorry Arfin, but I don't agree with criminals being able to legally obtain their firearms to use maliciously.

That's okay.

Perhaps you would be so good as to explain why these same people are legally able to obtain archery equipment, machetes, hunting knives, blowguns, gasoline, ice picks, hatchets & axes, crowbars, or a whole variety of "martial arts" weaponry.

Here's your criminal, walking the streets among the general population, with no requirement for him to be easily identified, and he can purchase the equipment for all manner of mayhem without anyone's batting an eye.

But he can't (legally) buy a gun.

Does it not seem that we're solving the wrong problem?

I don't intend to imply that background checks actually prevent crime, as crime in itself is a given of society, in to be blunt, nothing will ever completely stop it.

Yes. See above.

You see, we didn't have background checks for a very long time. The high rate of violent crime that we see today didn't occur until after we instituted them. I'm not trying to propose "post hoc ergo propter hoc" because it would be a real stretch to assert "background checks cause crime."

My assertion is that they are worse than pointless. They discourage law-abiding folk from buying.

Saying a background check is there to prevent honest people from legally obtaining a firearm is just a clever spin on the situation.

Well, no.

This is data analysis.

I'm deadly serious. When you look at a policy or practice and you see that it patently does not accomplish its stated goals, then, if you want to know why it continues, you have to either assume unbounded stupidity, or you have to more closely examine what is actually achieved, and once you know what that is, then you have to allow for the possibility that the people maintaining the status quo -- with a great deal of effort, I might add -- are doing so precisely because they want that outcome.

Background checks don't stop crime.

They don't stop criminals from possessing arms.

They DO interfere with and discourage lawful commerce.

Now, you go point this out to the people doing it (as has been done repeatedly), and they stick their fingers in their ears: "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Or they argue that it does, too, and you're just too stupid to notice.

These are people smart enough to get elected to office over and over, but not smart enough to recognize that their patently failed policy is, well, failed.

Sooner or later you have to call BS on that.

A) Years ago, no background checks. Crime was an order of magnitude lower.

B) Today, we have background checks. Crime is doing better than the stock market.

But . . . we still NEED background checks, and they're very important. But WHY? Well, because crime would skyrocket without them. Yeah. See (A) above.

My conclusion, after a dispassionate data analysis, is that the purpose of background checks is to deny honest people access to guns.

And yet, here we are, with hundreds of members convinced that -- just this once -- the government got it right.

Holy cow.

 

[rdhood]

A felony is a felony? All felons should be deprived of their rights?


http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/09/04/knife_0905.html


"A Wheeler High School student has been suspended for 10 days and charged with a felony for carrying a weapon onto the campus."


The weapon was a 2.5" swiss army knife. If a law can be used by authorities for some personal or political purpose, it will be.

 

[ctdonath]

In New York, possession of a magazine holding over 10 rounds and made after 1994 is a felony.

'nuff said.

 

[ServiceSoon]

These are people smart enough to get elected to office over and over, but not smart enough to recognize that their patently failed policy is, well, failed.

Any educated politician knows what laws are or aren't working. They continue to support them on purpose. When the politicians support these “feel good” laws in the average person’s eyes at least they are doing something. Most people don't spend hours and hours everyday researching different policy effectiveness. People expect the politicians they vote for to solve the problems...otherwise they will not get re-elected. Better for them to do something that doesn’t work than to do nothing.

Please watch this video for an example. This video is about a city ordinance that requires victims of firearm robbery to report it within 48 hours. The video is 7 minutes long.

 

[P5 Guy]

What part of "Shall not be infinged" don't you get

Re-active law enforcement not pro-active.

 

[The Unknown User]

I think Arfin put me in my place pretty well.

Perhaps you would be so good as to explain why these same people are legally able to obtain archery equipment, machetes, hunting knives, blowguns, gasoline, ice picks, hatchets & axes, crowbars, or a whole variety of "martial arts" weaponry.

Uh, crap.

I think the biggest problem is how society as a whole views weapons. For example, I don't need a license to carry a folding knife, as that can be seen as more of a tool. I could open a box with it, or open a package with it, or do any multitude of things with it.

Many of the other items you listed have the potential to be a dangerous weapon towards another, but were not necessary designed to be one. For example, you could very easily harm, maim, or kill a person with an ice pick, or a crowbar, but those items, by design, were not intended as a weapon.

It's like having a baseball bat. Does it double as a weapon? Yes. Was it intended and designed as one? No.

What I'd like to ask you is this: do you think that, by design, firearms should be held to a different degree of scrutiny? I personally think yes, seeing as firearms exist for one main purpose: killing another human being.

Does that mean that we, as Americans, or just as people without a given nationality are required by law or morality to lie down and die? No, absolutely not. That's why I think firearms are necessary for self-defense.

After some careful thought, I realized that what many background checks do is lull people into a sense of false security. Frankly, I still find it comforting to know that not just anyone can wander into a gun store and waltz out with a rifle or pistol, and that for them to legally obtain a firearm they are checked out first. I don't necessarily think that, in itself, is the problem. The problem is that background checks have become viewed as a negative thing.

For example, let's say background checks are abolished. Two men walk into the same gun store, and they both leave with a legally-purchased rifle. The first man is a well-meaning, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. The second man just got out of jail after a double murder, and is going back to finish off those he didn't get before.

In a world with background checks, the second man will not be able to legally purchase a firearm. Will that, inherently, prevent him from carrying out his plans? No, but it will prevent him from buying a firearm to begin with. I don't see this as a bad thing. Yes, he'll still find a means to meet his goal, but that doesn't mean that the legal system has to support him in meeting his goal.

The problem I have is that some background checks are so lengthy that it acts as more of a deterrent than a safety feature.

Here's your criminal, walking the streets among the general population, with no requirement for him to be easily identified, and he can purchase the equipment for all manner of mayhem without anyone's batting an eye.

But he can't (legally) buy a gun.

Does it not seem that we're solving the wrong problem?

Point taken. Again, I have to revert to my previous point about the intended purpose for a firearm versus the intended purpose of a crowbar, or baseball bat, or ice pick.

 

[kludge]

Sooner or later you have to call BS on that.

A) Years ago, no background checks. Crime was an order of magnitude lower.

B) Today, we have background checks. Crime is doing better than the stock market.

But . . . we still NEED background checks, and they're very important. But WHY? Well, because crime would skyrocket without them. Yeah. See (A) above.

If we need background checks then we need a way to do it that doesn't link the purchaser to a gun purchase or a gun (make model serial number).

That is registration, no matter how you look at it, and I am 100% against that.

There are only two reasons to register guns... as a way to trace ownership of a gun for possible prosecution after a crime has already been committed, or to compile a list of gun owners so that at some future date it will be easier to confiscate them.

The background check does nothing to prevent crime.

Even if 38% of felons had prior felony convictions, that means 62% of felonies are committed by people who the day before could legally purchase a gun.

And the 38% will find another way to get a gun.

 

[M_Olson]

It's like having a baseball bat. Does it double as a weapon? Yes. Was it intended and designed as one? No

actually, yes it was. remember the club? i dont think the cavemen had recreation in mind when they first fashioned a crude blunt instrument.

the usefulness and range of an item always expands over time. was the gun originally made for killing? probably. has its range of use changed over time? yes it has. just like the "baseball" bat.

Point taken. Again, I have to revert to my previous point about the intended purpose for a firearm versus the intended purpose of a crowbar, or baseball bat, or ice pick.

what about gasoline? propane? fertilizer? or the host of other dangerous materials? should we have to go through a background check everytime we fill up?

 

[The Unknown User]

I wasn't aware cavemen were designing baseball bats.

A club is a weapon. A baseball bat is not a weapon until used as one by someone. A baseball bat is an object used in a sport.

An object, item, or substance is not a weapon unless designed to be one.

Gasoline and propane are fuels. They are not weapons, or dangerous to others unless used as such deliberately, or blatantly used in a reckless manner. Unfortunately, human stupidity is a constant and a given, and there's no point to requiring a background check for that. (Gasp! Just like with background checks designed to prevent criminal activity!)

Again, firearms were built with the intent to kill others. A crowbar, or chainsaw, or baseball bat, or gasoline, or even a chair were not designed to be weapons, although they all have the potential.

 

[kludge]

I disgree with the statement that "firearms are designed to kill people."

It is just one of a myriad ways that people choose to use them.

In fact most firearms are designed for uses other than "killing people."

If you said "the first firearms were originally designed for war" or deigned as a "weapon" then I would agree with that, but not "killing people."

Even weapons of war are designed with the ulimate goal of peace and freedom.

(Gasp! Just like with background checks designed to prevent criminal activity!)

Can you show any statisctics that background checks prevent criminal activity?

 

[Soybomb]

For example, let's say background checks are abolished. Two men walk into the same gun store, and they both leave with a legally-purchased rifle. The first man is a well-meaning, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. The second man just got out of jail after a double murder, and is going back to finish off those he didn't get before.

In a world with background checks, the second man will not be able to legally purchase a firearm. Will that, inherently, prevent him from carrying out his plans? No, but it will prevent him from buying a firearm to begin with. I don't see this as a bad thing. Yes, he'll still find a means to meet his goal, but that doesn't mean that the legal system has to support him in meeting his goal.

It infringed on the freedoms of the innocent and does nothing to stop the criminal actions and its not a bad thing? Shouldn't it have to actually do something just to justify the money we spend on it let alone not harm the innocent?

 

[JKimball]

I started this thread and I still haven't voted yet. There have been some really good points made on both sides of the question.

I'll admit that I hate the idea of thugs, thieves, rapists, and violent gangs picking up AR's, AK's, Shotguns, rifles, .50 BMG's, or handguns at the local gun store. But at the same time I know background checks won't stop them. I can follow the local classifeds for a couple weeks and find just about any gun I've ever wanted and go buy it without a background check. So you don't even have to have connections with illegal gun runners. So I agree with the point that the system now is for the most part just an infringement on our rights and could seriously be abused to infringe even more.

However I also agree with the point that if it is going to be illegal for certain people to own guns, we have to be able to enforce it somehow. And we shouldn't just make it legal for them because it is impossible to prevent them from getting them.

I also agree that we shouldn't be letting dangerous felons back out into society. But the fact is that we are doing just that.

I think we need "correctional facilities" that actually give prisoners a chance to make some positive changes. Then it would be a lot easier to agree that they should have their right to bear arms restored when their time was up.

Arfin,

You have made some very convincing arguments. However, I can't help but wonder how you would feel if you were running a gun shop and someone walks in who you can tell is a really shady character, and wants to buy 2 or 3 or 5 or 6 AK's from you. Or maybe it is a group of 4 or 5 kids (over 18) who are decked out in the local gang's colors. They plunk down $5,000 cash and start asking about your AR's. Or maybe that Barrett up on the wall. Are you going to feel annoyed that you have to run a background check on them?

This is a tough issue and I think what we have now is pretty much useless, or worse than useless, but there may be a better solution than just letting anybody buy a gun no questions asked. I think that is the ideal, and has worked before in our country, but our country is different now and I don't know if society will ever change enough that we can say that is the best solution.

When it comes down to it though, if we're going to make a mistake on the solution, I would rather see us err in the direction of maintaining the right of the people to keep and bear arms, even if that makes it easier for the bad guys.

Man I'm tired from all this flip flopping.

 

[brerrabbit]

I am for background checks on gun ownership as much as I am for preemptive authorization to exersize political speech.

 

[kludge]

One of the thing I haven't seen mentioned is the statistical rate of crime and violent crime by age. One of the biggest predictors is age. 17-30 year olds commit a large percentage of crimes and don't have criminal records yet. Background checks are worthless for someone who doesn't have a criminal record.

On the same subject, there are some "kids" who do some stupid stuff, who after spending their time and getting some maturity turn out to be really great people. Should they be denied the right of defending themselves?

As for the gang bangers that kill each other over "turf"... I don't think legalizing drugs will make them change their attitude about their "turf" and people moving in with legal narcotics at retail.

 

[eliphalet]

Rob87

I personally think yes, seeing as firearms exist for one main purpose: killing another human being

.
That quote is so far out there, I honestly don't know where to start or what to say, and doubt it would be understood.