Are background checks good or bad?

[ArfinGreebly]

Right To Refuse Service

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?

Kind of depends on my own sense of ethics, right?

I know guys here in Reno who will simply declare "sorry, I can't sell you a gun," if someone walks in that seems the least bit flaky to them.

They don't even bother with the background check.

"Sorry, man, you've come to the wrong place. You'll need to shop elsewhere."

There will be times when you "judge a book by its cover" and get it wrong. Then again, if you're in the habit of dressing like a ganger, and you stroll into a gun shop lookin' for some heat, you might not be totally surprised if the proprietor says, "sorry, fella, we're pretty picky about whom we serve here."

Background check? It would never get that far.

And the guy who would sell the bangers a gun? The background check is simply an inconvenience.

On the other hand, though, let's say that background checks were eliminated. Let's say that you no longer had to have a special license to sell guns.

Let's say it's -- from the viewpoint of selling guns -- 1965 all over again. You can sell them in hardware stores, automotive shops, sporting goods stores, Raley's Supermarkets (yes, they sold guns), Army Surplus stores, feed and grain stores, and so on. No problem, you see, because gun sales are no longer restricted.

Gun ownership is unremarkable.

Everybody has one. Or six. Or twenty.

Ammo is available everywhere. Right by the cigarettes and whiskey.

Hell, even 7-Eleven stores have guns and ammo.

Now your "gang colors" shady character walks in someplace and wants to buy a gun. So, he buys a gun. Maybe six.

Big deal.

Everyone he meets is also armed. Everyone. He's not special any more. The huge disparity of force that made him king of the 'hood is gone.

He's going to be living in a culture of politeness and civility among armed people who are much harder to push around.

He's no longer living in a culture of snivelling cowardice and quivering fear. (Okay, that's hyperbole. Just.)

When the "bad guy" is no longer, by default, the "baddest dude on the block 'cuz he gots a Glock" he will have some incentive to work within society, rather than against it.

Now, I know this is not as crisp and articulate as some of my other posts on this, but I believe it's clear enough.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Premise Error

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.

Archimedes designed some fine, effective, and deadly machinery. His art was one of the reasons Athens was so hard to defeat. His machines did, in fact, kill people.

Their purpose, however, was to effect the defense of Athens from invaders.

Guns are fine, effective, and deadly machines. Whether the particular gun you're holding was specifically designed for target shooting, quail hunting, deer hunting, or warfare is really not the point.

Their broadest application is defense. Defense of the nation, defense of the home, defense of the community and society.

They are specifically designed as a force equalizer. No longer do the hulks and brutes dictate to the weak, the small, the old, the young women, and the children.

The common man now has a chance at equal force when confronting what would have been certain overwhelm at the hands of a stronger attacker.

The point isn't that a gun can kill a human.

The point is entirely that this ultimate in deadly force offsets the otherwise irresistible strength and deadliness of the larger, stronger human predator.

It is the hand that holds the gun, rather than the gun itself that determines to what end its capabilities are used.

Do not make the error of establishing the premise that "guns have a purpose" as they, in fact, do not.

People -- living sentient beings -- have a purpose. Toward that purpose they will employ whatever tool is best suited to its achievement.

If the purpose is mayhem, then any weapon, including a gun, may be employed. If the purpose is the defense of one's family, the most effective tool is often the firearm.

The gun achieves a large disparity of force if nobody else has one. It achieves equality of force if everybody has one.

Since the brutes and the bandits will always avail themselves of the means of force, it thus behoves the balance of society to equalize.

The gun is that equalizer.

 

[The Unknown User]

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

I was being sarcastic. I fully recognize that background checks don't prevent criminal activity. It merely prevents someone who has shown poor discretion in the past from getting a firearm.

I was also making a satirical comment on the fact that my own logic actually disproved a portion of the point I was attempting to make.

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."

Generally people wage war with other people, with the intent of using a weapon of some kind to kill the people they're waging war with.

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?

It doesn't infringe on any freedoms. If you're a violent criminal, you're part of the problem. Why should it be legal to sell you the tools you'll use to commit your crimes which, by definition, make you part of the problem?

Maybe you support the legal sale of firearms to criminals, but I sure as hell don't.

Background checks don't stop criminal activity. They aren't designed to prevent criminal activity, curtail criminal activity, or have any effect on criminal activity. They are designed to make sure that someone attempting to buy a firearm legally has shown good discretion in the past.

For example, I have no record. I don't even have any speeding tickets. I've never done anything wrong in my entire life. Am I a potential danger to society if sold a firearm? No, not at all.

But let's take someone just out of jail after committing an armed robbery trying to buy a firearm. Should he be sold a firearm? Absolutely not. Hell no. Never in a million years.

Oh, wait, you guys want him to, because it's his right. As far as I'm concerned, you lose your rights once you encroach on others'.

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.

You're acting as if you've never met someone who doesn't believe everything you believe.

Arfin: You've made some great points, but I will have to respectfully disagree ultimately. Unfortunately, I think most of the debate has reverted to semantics, and putting a clever twist on things.

For example, I've concluded that firearms were invented with the purpose and goal of killing another, whereas you would conclude that firearms were invented with the goal of protecting oneself, and one's family.

Neither of us right, and neither of us is wrong.

 

[eliphalet]

You're acting as if you've never met someone who doesn't believe everything you believe.

You misunderstood, perhaps I did you also. Of the several dozen firearms myself or close family own only a handful or less were designed for either defense or offense. Guns do "exist" for other purposes than "killing another human being".

 

[22-rimfire]

Guns are designed to send a projectile downrange at whatever the shooter or operator points the gun at. I think guns ARE designed to kill something. That has always been their purpose throughout history. But it takes the firearm operator to make the decision to kill the something. Guns can also be used for target shooting or plinking; not killing something. So it is not the gun that is the issue but the operator of the machine.

I wonder how popular guns would be if they sent a harmless light beam down range at a target that records where that beam hits? Target practice? My belief is NOT very popular.

Do I favor background checks as we know them today through the NICS system? For me, they are not necessary. But, as some have pointed out with certain types of perspective gun buyers out there, the check sure does make the FFL dealer more comfortable with who walks out the door with the firearm when people are trying to find liability on consumer products. You could argue that the same liability exists on private sales and hence what makes it different for a dealer? Answer: The dealer is in business to sell fireams. The laws define defensable behavior boundaries. Dealers need this protection in today's world. They shouldn't, but I think they do.

I have to say that IF I were a FFL dealer I would privately favor the automated background checks as the background check provides the dealer a defensable shield from future liability as long as the sale was made correctly. I can live with the NICS check. I don't like it much, but the check has never limited my ability to make a purchase when I wanted to versus the waiting periods that some states have with the background check.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Making The FFL Comfortable?

For me, they are not necessary. But, as some have pointed out with certain types of perspective gun buyers out there, the check sure does make the FFL dealer more comfortable with who walks out the door with the firearm when people are trying to find liability on consumer products.

I keep seeing mention of FFLs in this discussion.

I suppose I should have addressed this sooner.

Those (the FFLs) go away.

Guns are now available in hardware stores, gas stations, supermarkets, sporting goods stores, auto parts stores, convenience stores, and fine clothing stores everywhere.

Remember? No background check. No need to license the sale of guns. Anyone who wants to add them to their retail line just does.

So we don't worry about whether background checks make FFLs feel better -- neither one exists any more!

Oh, sure, we'll still have gun stores. It's good to have stores that specialize in certain lines of goods. After all, don't we have stores that sell nothing but coffee and coffee-related items? Starbucks?

The idea that you would eliminate background checks and still keep the rest of the restrictive structure, complete with dealer licensing? Nah. No point.

Think.

You remove the restriction on who may buy a gun, why would you continue to restrict the inventory and procedures of gun stores?

The whole artificial bureaucratic roadblock-to-rights system just goes away.

As much as I hate to put government employees out of work, I figure we gotta cowboy up. Hey, maybe the ex-ATF agents can work for TSA, inspecting shampoo. After all, that's important work.

 

[22-rimfire]

Interesting food for thought. I suspect you would be in an extreme minority when it comes to throwing out all the restrictive laws whether it be FFL-ing of dealers or store owners, or any kind of background check. Wasn't it enough to sign the ever expanding Form 4473? If law abiding gun owners were the majority, this kind of concept could be sold.

This is a basic argument that having any kind of law does not restrict a person from acquiring or using a firearm for criminal purposes. I agree that the laws only restrict law abiding people from firearm ownership. The laws are not predictive in terms of behavior.

What about NYC and our candidate Rudy? He would argue that enforcing their laws, some of the most restrictive laws in the country, has reduced crime in his city. In the short term, it probably did. But ultimately, if you want a firearm, you'll get one no matter whether or not ownership is legal. This is one of the things that scares me about Rudy. I think he believes that restrictive laws on ownership work no matter what he says on the campaign trail. If you are bent on hurting someone, you will find a way no matter what the laws are. The last GOP debate only makes me more concerned about Rudy. What is good for NYC is not necessarily good for somewhere else. When the population reaches a certain magical density, you take away the guns or make guns only available to the rich. Not my idea of America or the Bill of Rights.

Stores are sued for selling products that harm the buyer or user. I still think the NICS check ultimately only protects the dealer and does little to reduce crime or use of a firearm for criminal purposes. So, how do you protect the store owner from liability when he sells that gun to a gang banger or to somebody that is a crazed maniac?

 

[M_Olson]

What about NYC and our candidate Rudy? He would argue that enforcing their laws, some of the most restrictive laws in the country, has reduced crime in his city. In the short term, it probably did. But ultimately, if you want a firearm, you'll get one no matter whether or not ownership is legal. This is one of the things that scares me about Rudy. I think he believes that restrictive laws on ownership work no matter what he says on the campaign trail. If you are bent on hurting someone, you will find a way no matter what the laws are.

not only that, but were the gun laws the only laws he started strictly enforcing? no. he started enforcing all laws. so one could make the argument that it was not the gun laws that had any effect, nor the enforcement of said laws, but it was the enforcement of all the others that made it a safer place.

Stores are sued for selling products that harm the buyer or user. I still think the NICS check ultimately only protects the dealer and does little to reduce crime or use of a firearm for criminal purposes. So, how do you protect the store owner from liability when he sells that gun to a gang banger or to somebody that is a crazed maniac?

starting punishing people for bringing forward frivolous lawsuits for one. pass "personal responsibility" laws. i hate new laws, we have more than enough all ready, but i could get behind this kind of legislation.

 

[whatbrick]

It doesn't infringe on any freedoms. If you're a violent criminal, you're part of the problem. Why should it be legal to sell you the tools you'll use to commit your crimes which, by definition, make you part of the problem?

Which brings us back to the question of why there are no background checks when purchasing other tools that can be used to help commit a crime.

Background checks are fallible and can keep lawful people from obtaining the best means of protecting themselves from the criminal element who has no problem obtaining those same means from illegal sources. I see that as a bigger problem.

Background checks don't stop criminal activity. They aren't designed to prevent criminal activity, curtail criminal activity, or have any effect on criminal activity. They are designed to make sure that someone attempting to buy a firearm legally has shown good discretion in the past.

So you're fine with criminals who've been smart enough to not get caught legally buying firearms? You're fine with someone who is intent on committing their first crime in legally purchasing a firearm? Both of these people would pass a background check. So basically, only smart and/or lucky people should be legally allowed to buy guns? Funny, I don't remember seeing something that discriminatory in the 2nd Amendment.

For example, I have no record. I don't even have any speeding tickets. I've never done anything wrong in my entire life. Am I a potential danger to society if sold a firearm? No, not at all.

Sure, but when you're confused with a criminal who has similar info as you, then there's a chance you'll be denied and have to waste lots of time and money having to prove who you are. Guess what, your right to keep and bear that firearm has just been infringed upon. That's not just speculation, that's happened to a few members on this board. I'm sure a more thorough search will provide more examples.

I suspect you would be in an extreme minority when it comes to throwing out all the restrictive laws whether it be FFL-ing of dealers or store owners, or any kind of background check.

I would be a part of that minority as well.

 

[StuckInMA]

For example, I have no record. I don't even have any speeding tickets. I've never done anything wrong in my entire life. Am I a potential danger to society if sold a firearm? No, not at all.

I believe everyone is a potential danger to society. They may not be a danger at the time of purchase but life has a way of changing people. I don't believe a past record is a good indicator of a persons future.

A squeaky clean background check doesn't mean you won't be a danger five, ten or even twenty years from now. And on the flipside, a prison record doesn't mean you'll be a danger to society for the rest of your life.

JMHO

 

[22-rimfire]

Is the NICS check predictive of future behavior? My first thought is No Way. But, all the statistics I see conclude that the majority of the crimes are committed by people that have previously committed crimes. So, for the majority, the NICS check would reduce access to firearms and future crime.

No background check is going to stop a person like Cho or anyone bent on hurting someone. So, is the infringement on our freedoms worth the price for stopping or only "slowing down" the commission of crimes by such a small subset of our society? It is an issue that I am torn over and the only good reason for the law is protection of the businessman from lawsuits resulting from the sale of a firearm. Frivolous lawsuit laws? Maybe. It's a start.

I do agree that everyone (when you want to generalize) is a potential danger to society. You can make this kind of statement about just about any product or person. Is getting a drivers license (or buying a car) an indicator that you will be involved in a car accident and potentially cause the death of another person? Does owning a home with a swimming pool make it more likely that someone will drown on your property? Does turning 50 increase the odds of developing prostate cancer in men?

 

[Werewolf]

Someone once said that the Road to Hell is paved with GOOD intentions.

The NICS system is just one of many roads to hell created by people with good intentions who, unfortunately, have a real inability to think further into the future than the ends of their noses.

NICS is just a mini-prohibition and we all know how well prohibition worked and the unintended consequence re: crime.

NICS accomplishes exactly the same thing - an unintended consequence - increased crime. Criminals will get guns. Period. Fact. There's no arguing with that premise.

If criminals can't get guns by walking into a store and buying them then they'll find some other way to get one - like breaking into YOUR house to steal it; buying it from a guy on the street that broke into YOUR house to steal it; buying it from a smuggler; breaking into a National Guard armory or any of the other numerous ways that will negatively impact someone.

The crime chain has many links. I've pointed out just one. It's a link created by those with good intentions who legislated NICS into existence.

If criminals could just walk into a gun store and buy what they need the store owner is enriched, the need for the home owner to be robbed to provide guns for criminals goes away, the gun smuggler goes out of business, the National Guard armories aren't broken into etc etc. Crime won't go away but the need for at least one reason for it will.

The criminal will still continue to commit crime but the net effect of doing away with the NICS check is actually a positive because one link in the chain of crime has been done away with.

Kind'a like the war on drugs. Make 'em legal and all the junkies breaking into homes to steal stuff they can quickly convert to cash necessary to support their habits just plain goes away. (about 65% or so of all home breakins would go away if drugs became legal - that is on the FBI crime statistics site somewhere).

Those who created and those who agree with NICS have big hearts and good intentions. Unfortunately those good intentions have done little more than add another link, a link that directly impacts the law abiding, into the chain of crime. The net effect is not only increased crime and no reduction in criminals who have guns, but adds to the process, stolen liberty from the law abiding and a portion of the population left defenseless because IMO there are lots of folk out there that won't buy a firearm just because of the perceived hassle.

NICS is not the answer to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. That answer is already on the books. Punish the criminal for his act not the tool he uses. Plenty of laws on the books to do that now - if the bleeding hearts would just enforce them and put the scum away for as long as is possible.

 

[StuckInMA]

I do agree that everyone (when you want to generalize) is a potential danger to society. You can make this kind of statement about just about any product or person.

Absolutely. I was just referring to the specific sentence where a gun was mentioned.

Is the NICS check predictive of future behavior? My first thought is No Way. But, all the statistics I see conclude that the majority of the crimes are committed by people that have previously committed crimes. So, for the majority, the NICS check would reduce access to firearms and future crime.

NICS weeds out repeat offenders. So any crime they commit with a gun is committed with an illegal gun that NICS has no control over. This takes us back to whether or not NICS is truly restricting enough criminals from accessing firearms (legal or illegal) to make it worth the hassle for the good guys.

It's a tough call in this day and age. For me anyway. On one hand I don't think criminals should be able to walk into a gun shop and purchase a gun. And since we don't keep criminals locked up that's a real possibility without NICS. On the other hand I don't think our rights should be dependant on a system that can be shut down at any time for any reason like it was in PA.

 

[eliphalet]

For example, I have no record. I don't even have any speeding tickets. I've never done anything wrong in my entire life. Am I a potential danger to society if sold a firearm? No, not at all.

Not a gun but as another step toward gun control.
Yes IMHO your type of individual need for what you believe to be protection and people that think like you ARE a danger to society, or at least the society I live or want to live in. Restrictive laws such as Ma., Washington DC and others, the people that agree that such ideals, or laws for safety sake, will make America a better, safer place to live in, I feel in a way, threaten my freedom. I fear the tyranny of a Government and the loss of many of our freedoms put in place by men that KNEW what living under a tyrannical government was, is more of a danger to me or my descendent's than any criminal.

Cannot we see what history has taught us? Man has not changed. Cannot we see the statistics of gun controls in other countries or states now and what in the past has done for an individual's safe being? From the complete confiscation of Hitler or Mao to the rise of cities or country's crime rates that impose gun restrictions? This direction my friends I fear far more than any individual or gang related criminal activity. Besides the criminal is not going to obey such laws anyway.

 

[22-rimfire]

The NICS system is just one of many roads to hell created by people with good intentions who, unfortunately, have a real inability to think further into the future than the ends of their noses.

Good intentions, yes. Unless your objective is the eventual registration and ultimately confiscation of firearms. It is a step in that direction.

I am all over the place on the NICS issue. I can't see that much long term good comes from it. But, it makes people feel good that there is something in place to reduce access to firearms by criminals.

 

[ctdonath]

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.

I personally think no, seeing as firearms exist for one main purpose: stopping other humans with extreme prejudice - which is sometimes essential to one's survival.

The problem is that background checks have become viewed as a negative thing.

The problem is that background checks are implemented as a negative thing, ALWAYS ultimately implemented as a means of subjugating others. It may be couched as protecting the public at large, but always does so by making the individual more vulnerable.

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.

So? The first will let himself (by definition) be disarmed should the law require it. The second will not be hindered by something as trivial as a background check regardless of whether the law requires it. As you present it, the former has the opportunity to defend himself against the latter should he be the target thereof.

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.

Only the briefest of setbacks for the latter, a terminal vulnerability for the former.

I don't see this as a bad thing.

Your mistake is continually looking at the alleged good that can be done, rather than the bad that probably will be done.

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.

Freedom does not mean the legal "supports him".

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

All "background check" systems gravitate toward an ever-more-hindering liability upon the law-abiding.

At any time (less incarceration), criminals are free to get guns now under any system ... while the law-abiding are not so long as there is any hindrance. "Guilty until proven innocent" is anathema to freedom, facilitating criminality & tyranny in the lying guise of protecting the innocent.

 

[kludge]

Quote:

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

I was being sarcastic. I fully recognize that background checks don't prevent criminal activity. It merely prevents someone who has shown poor discretion in the past from getting a firearm.

No, it does not.

I was also making a satirical comment on the fact that my own logic actually disproved a portion of the point I was attempting to make.

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."

Generally people wage war with other people, with the intent of using a weapon of some kind to kill the people they're waging war with.

Generelly people wage war with people because:
1) They want to force you to do something that you don't want to do
Corollary to 1) you don't want to be forced to do what they want you to do.

2) They want to forcibly take whats yours.
Corollary to 2) You want to prevent them from taking what's yours.

People who are happy as slaves/serfs don't fight wars. People who want slaves/serfs tend not to kill you when they do what they want (they want wealth/power).

The killing is the byproduct of war, not the intent of war, unless you're talking about genocide, and the only solution to that problem is to fight against, and if need be, kill the people who are trying to kill you until they stop trying to kill you.

Killing is sometimes the byproduct of home defense, though it is not the goal. The goal is to keep them from killing/raping/stealing from you/spouse/kids. Sometimes they die in the process. And it's justifiable.

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?

It doesn't infringe on any freedoms. If you're a violent criminal, you're part of the problem. Why should it be legal to sell you the tools you'll use to commit your crimes which, by definition, make you part of the problem?

Maybe you support the legal sale of firearms to criminals, but I sure as hell don't.

Background checks don't stop criminal activity. They aren't designed to prevent criminal activity, curtail criminal activity, or have any effect on criminal activity. They are designed to make sure that someone attempting to buy a firearm legally has shown good discretion in the past.

Let me repeat what you said:

Background checks don't stop criminal activity.

But whenever you hear a politician asking for background checks the specific reason is always to prevent crime.

So, you admit we are being lied to, correct?

 

[IA_farmboy]

Firearm registration does not keep criminals from doing crime. A criminal will simply find another means to arm themselves. Forget straw purchases, theft of firearms, and so on for the moment. I said the criminals will still find means to arm themselves. Look at the UK. There is a near complete ban on firearms so the criminals are now arming themselves with swords and knives. They are using clubs, air guns, or their fists and feet. I've heard people remark on how much damage a pair of steel toed boots can do.

In other threads on this forum there are debates over the suicide rates and how firearm ownership relates. The argument is that if someone is determined to kill themselves they will use whatever means available. The same is true for one that wishes to kill others. They will use explosives, knives, bows and arrows, or even steel toed boots. The idea that NICS disarms criminals is laughable. A certain individual was quite capable of causing great damage with a moving van, diesel fuel, and fertilizer. I suppose we should all have to call into NICS before renting or buying a vehicle, filling up a lawnmower, or fertilizing a corn field.

I remember hearing cases on things like VCRs, lock pick kits, and anhydrous ammonia. These things can be used to illegally copy movies, break into homes, and make methamphetamines. They are also useful for recording kids birthdays, opening a trunk that the owner lost the keys to open, and fertilize fields. Court cases have shown in the past that the ownership of an item is insufficient evidence of a crime as long as the item was not shown to be used in the commission of a crime.

I have to ask how a firearm is any different than a lock pick kit. Any felon can buy a VCR or lock pick kit despite the many times those are use in crimes. The reason most people don't find the need to regulate these things is because despite the many times crimes are committed with these tools there exists a far larger number of people that choose not to break the law with these items.

We are looking for the one in thousands that are unfit to own a firearm. We do this by checking a database that has one in thousands of errors. We suspect everyone of a crime before buying a tool capable of many legal uses. This is in complete opposition of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" that the government claims to protect.

Along with court cases protecting ownership of a variety of items I'm reminded of testing for certain diseases and the error rates they have. I believe it was a test for AIDS. The test gave a false positive report well above the infection rate. Many people were falsely told they had AIDS when they did not. This created a scare and a medical nightmare. Procedures were since changed, the primary one is that the tests are not done routinely and the tests are verified before the patient is informed.

What is the false positive rate of NICS? What is the rate of people deemed unfit to own a firearm vs. those that are? What is the false NEGATIVE rate of NICS? A false negative allows a felon or mentally unfit person to buy a firearm. There is a recent and infamous case in a certain place of higher education to prove this does happen. I will laugh in the face of anyone that tells me the NICS database is free of errors. The true error rate cannot be known, only estimated.

This background check has raised prices, caused inconvenience, and created a stigma that only disarms the law abiding.

Another laughable theory is that the government will discard the information on a background check once it's complete. Government live off of information on its citizens. I find it difficult to believe that a rule on the discard of information on a background check is truly enforceable. This goes with the fantasy that there are no errors in the NICS database. The NICS needs to defend its funding. To do that there must be records. The records show how many people made requests. To prove they were not falsified they need to be traceable. To throw out those records means the NICS will have a difficult time to defend even its existence... On second thought I'm liking that idea.

There are those that say, "Are you saying that criminals should be able to buy a nuclear warhead?" or some other nonsense. A nuclear warhead has not been shown to have a legal use in the hands of the common citizen. A rifle is shown to be a legal tool for sport, hunting, and defense. Just like a hammer can be used to build a house as much as it can be to break into one we don't ask people to jump through all kinds of legal hoops to buy one. The seller should not ask for anything more than proper compensation for any item that has a legal use, whether that be a hammer, rifle, VCR, handgun, lock pick kit, shotgun, or steel toed boots.

 

[kludge]

Another laughable theory is that the government will discard the information on a background check once it's complete. Government live off of information on its citizens. I find it difficult to believe that a rule on the discard of information on a background check is truly enforceable.

Exactly!!!!!

If it's a "background check" (as opposed to a registation scheme) then why the #3!! does the FFL read the make model and serial number of the gun I'm purchasing to the person on the other end of the phone????

Will someone PLEASE expain that!!??

 

[Werewolf]

Reminder: I hate background checks. NICS is a system designed to subjugate the law abiding and has nothing to do with crime control.

That said: I have to answer the below.

If it's a "background check" (as opposed to a registation scheme) then why the #3!! does the FFL read the make model and serial number of the gun I'm purchasing to the person on the other end of the phone????

Will someone PLEASE expain that!!??

I have no idea where you're buying your guns but if they're reading out the make, model and serial number when calling in the check it's because the state you live in requires it and not because the feds do.

In OK that has never happened to me. All the FFL does is say long gun or hand gun - that's it. The make, model and S/N is on the 4473 but it is not and never has been on any of the numerous purchases I've made been passed on to the person on the other end of the phone.

 

[brerrabbit]

Gotta go with Werewolf on this one.

As a fellow okie and frequent firearm buyer, he has it down. The only information given to nics is the type of firearm. no S/N, model or anything else.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

The problem with background checks is the ease of which they can turn into foreground checks.

The only possible way a gun entrepreneur can prove that he/she conducted a "background check" is to preserve the official paperwork.

That paperwork becomes very handy to a regime that decides that gun ownership is criminal behavior.

 

[kludge]

Werewolf,

Very interesting. I live in IN, and since I have a handgun license I get to bypass the IN state background check... Or I thought I did...

 

[Brenainn]

In my opinion...

Personally, I think they (background checks) are nonsense. A criminal is a criminal. If they wanted to buy a gun, they wouldn’t do it legally anyway, and you know good and well that they will buy illegally. You can’t keep the guns out of criminal’s hands, no matter what, and no matter what laws are passed. This is why firearms should never be banned. WE, as law abiding citizens have to have a way to protect ourselves and keep the balance, we have a right to protect ourselves from the non-law abiding citizens. In my opinion!

 

[Soybomb]

It doesn't infringe on any freedoms. If you're a violent criminal, you're part of the problem. Why should it be legal to sell you the tools you'll use to commit your crimes which, by definition, make you part of the problem?

Maybe you support the legal sale of firearms to criminals, but I sure as hell don't.

Background checks don't stop criminal activity. They aren't designed to prevent criminal activity, curtail criminal activity, or have any effect on criminal activity. They are designed to make sure that someone attempting to buy a firearm legally has shown good discretion in the past.

For example, I have no record. I don't even have any speeding tickets. I've never done anything wrong in my entire life. Am I a potential danger to society if sold a firearm? No, not at all.

But let's take someone just out of jail after committing an armed robbery trying to buy a firearm. Should he be sold a firearm? Absolutely not. Hell no. Never in a million years.

Oh, wait, you guys want him to, because it's his right. As far as I'm concerned, you lose your rights once you encroach on others'.

Perhaps it hasn't infringed on your freedoms yet but have had people in this thread tell their stories of delays when buying firearms and posters give statistics on the thousands of people who are wrongly denied by the system each year. How can you justify ignoring those that are wrongly impacted by this system?

They aren't designed to prevent criminal activity, curtail criminal activity, or have any effect on criminal activity. They are designed to make sure that someone attempting to buy a firearm legally has shown good discretion in the past.

So what are you accomplishing other than perhaps a case of the warm and fuzzies? The criminal gets the firearm either way. Your only impact is going to be on the innocent. We probably all agree that laws on concealed carry only impact those who are law abiding citizens to start with, so we are pretending like the background check laws do anything to criminals either?

But let's take someone just out of jail after committing an armed robbery trying to buy a firearm. Should he be sold a firearm? Absolutely not. Hell no. Never in a million years.

This is sort of drifting to a different topic, but how come? Is he's a danger with a gun, why is he back out on the street? If he's reformed he'll buy a legal gun for self defense. If he's a robber he'll take your gun when you're not home or get one from a friend.

Is the NICS check predictive of future behavior? My first thought is No Way. But, all the statistics I see conclude that the majority of the crimes are committed by people that have previously committed crimes. So, for the majority, the NICS check would reduce access to firearms and future crime.

I don't see how the logic follows here. Someone has a history of continuing to break the law and statistically probably will, but they won't break the gun control laws?

I still can't see how any of you can support background checks. At their best they don't keep criminals from getting guns. At their worst they interfere with the good citizen's 2nd amendment rights. What is the point?