Are background checks good or bad?

[esmith]

Well, a criminal already doesn't have to get a background check.

He knows he's a criminal. He knows not going to pass such a check. He's already going to shop somewhere else.

So you, being all law-abiding and stuff, go to the store, PAY for a background check, and in some states WAIT for your gun.

Fabulous. You get to pay and wait. The criminal is going to cash-and-carry a gun from his dealer.

Helpful?

For whom?

Background checks?

A broken concept from day one.

Where i live it is a lot easier to get a firearm legally then illegally. If there was no background check im saying people could walk in and out with a gun and go shoot up a store, no check adds to the convience to criminals. A background check does not stop people from getting guns, it supresses it. You can't stop people from doing things, if they want it bad enough they are going to get it. Background checks are walls that people have to get behind in order to have the convience to go to a sports store and come out with a gun.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Easier?

Where i live it is a lot easier to get a firearm legally then illegally.

Got a source for that?

Here's something to consider:

When determining whether a rule (a law) is a good thing or a bad thing, don't imagine the law in its most ideal use and setting, but rather imagine the worst abuse and harm that can come from it.

Always err on the side of freedom and liberty, not safety.

A law that purports to provide security always requires some sort of sacrifice of liberty. Always.

If the law doesn't provide that security, but instead causes inconvenience and barriers for normal commerce, then it's a bad law. It's not accomplishing its objective and is obstructing lawful commerce.

In its worst permutation, it prevents law-abiding citizens from obtaining firearms at all.

In its best permutation, it does nothing to prevent the criminal from shopping outside the framework and getting his gun anyway.

Ergo, the law is bad.

 

[Gord]

One big problem I have with the "criminals don't obey the law anyway" logic where gun control is concerned is that you can just as well try to apply that logic to any other law - in which case, why have laws at all?

I'm fine with background checks. In CA, the ten-day wait was excruciating - but here, to watch the shop owner get on the phone, state a name and some other info (driver's license number and stuff, don't pay a whole lot of attention to what's said so I'm not sure) and, about ten seconds later, hand someone a gun with a grin on their face - perfectly acceptable for me.

No, it won't stop criminals from obtaining guns illegally, but it will stop them from obtaining them legally. Gun ownership does not need its image sullied any more than it already has been by allowing rapists and murderers to waltz into a shop and buy whatever they want.

I'm also in favor of basic training (say, a free class, maybe an hour or two long, state-funded by CCW license fees) as a requisite for purchase, covering the basics of handling, safety, unloading, the Four Rules, etc. I imagine it'd eliminate a lot of the "it just went off" and "while I was cleaning it" incidents. People have rebutted me on this with "you don't have to take a driving test to drive a car around on your own property" - I don't see the logic here. A car is something you are able to control at all times, a fired bullet is not - especially as the result of an ND. You can keep a car within your property lines; not so a bullet.

 

[eliphalet]

The longer this thread goes and the more I read, the deeper my sadness an disappointment descends. Proof that propaganda works, tell a lie long enough it will be taken as truth.

Did any of you proponents of back ground checks read the paper/study recently posted, done IIRC at Harvard?
BTW does anyone have that link? I would like to have it and can't find it with search.

ArfinGreebly,
Well said sir.

 

[JamesM]

I'm also in favor of basic training (say, a free class, maybe an hour or two long, state-funded by CCW license fees) as a requisite for purchase, covering the basics of handling, safety, unloading, the Four Rules, etc.

That is great until the wait list to take the class is six months......

If you don’t like the "criminals don’t obey the law anyway" argument what about needing a BG check for a knife purchase, maybe people should be required to take a safety class for that (don’t run, how to remove avocado seed, proper storage, etc). There are already laws prohibiting people from using guns (or anything else) to murder, rob, rape, etc. Why regulate the tools they use? I don’t want to wake up one day and need to pass a BG check to go to a hardware or sporting goods store. Any crime you can commit with a gun you can commit with a knife, so why are firearms so special?

+1 to ArfinGreebly's posts

 

[ctdonath]

Then I went back and read about PA updating their system which is halting gun sales for 5 days. That made me realize that it's not just an inconvenience. It's a noose around our necks that can be tightened at any time.

Worth repeating.

Got that, guys?

5 days, no background checks, no guns, no reason.
Not some hypothetical future. NOW.
...but during those 5 days, felons will still be able to get guns. Not retail, surely; stolen ones do them fine.

 

[Gord]

Any crime you can commit with a gun you can commit with a knife, so why are firearms so special?

A knife (or generic stabbing tool) is easy enough to make (hell, a sharp stick will do ya) that background checks on 'em would be a waste of money. Your average banger can't build a Glock, or something approximating it, from scratch. Two different beasts and a flawed argument.

As far as the safety class for knives goes - guns are ranged weapons. I could care less if someone Darwins themselves out of existence - that's what natural selection is there for - but a gun introduces the very real possibility of impressing that someone's negligent stupidity on the baby two houses over.

I foresee the next comparison to be bows-and-arrows and crossbows. Fine, basic safety classes for those too - only reason there aren't more mishaps with 'em is because they aren't as popular, are much more deliberate to make ready, and it is much more obvious when they are "loaded."

So many gun accidents happen because an "unloaded" gun is seen much like a bow without an arrow nocked - safe to point at people and play around with and pull back the string (or the trigger) - only it's not readily apparent that there is, in fact, a magazine in the weapon and/or a round in the chamber. I feel that a few hours' basic training, stressing safety, would remedy this in large part.

 

[esmith]

Got a source for that?

Here's something to consider:

When determining whether a rule (a law) is a good thing or a bad thing, don't imagine the law in its most ideal use and setting, but rather imagine the worst abuse and harm that can come from it.

Always err on the side of freedom and liberty, not safety.

A law that purports to provide security always requires some sort of sacrifice of liberty. Always.

If the law doesn't provide that security, but instead causes inconvenience and barriers for normal commerce, then it's a bad law. It's not accomplishing its objective and is obstructing lawful commerce.

In its worst permutation, it prevents law-abiding citizens from obtaining firearms at all.

In its best permutation, it does nothing to prevent the criminal from shopping outside the framework and getting his gun anyway.

Ergo, the law is bad.
__________________

I would love to know how it stops law abiding citizens to not purchase firearms.

But anyway, "In its best permutation, it does nothing to prevent the criminal from shopping outside the framework and getting his gun anyway." The point you aren't getting is the fact that with a background check it makes it less easy for a criminal to buy a gun. He has to find an illegal dealer that is probability speaking already under heat. Now if there were no BG check anyone can waltz right on in to a dicks and come out with a gun, therefore it makes it more convenient for someone to commit a crime. It makes more places in a certain area able to distribute the most effective killing weapon.

Any rime you can commit with a gun you can commit with a knife, so why are firearms so special?

Can you kill someone with a knife at 100 yards away? The reason firearms are as big as they are is because of the effectiveness it has at killing people. It is a tool, it just so happens to be one of the best at its purpose.

 

[M_Olson]

I foresee the next comparison to be bows-and-arrows and crossbows.

actually, i would say computers. all those predators out there. we should all have to prove we arent predators before getting a computer/internet. then we should be forced to take a "internet safety" class. no exceptions. no one should be allowed to do anything on the internet, including things covered under the first amendment, without completing these steps.

 

[ctdonath]

why have laws at all?

When they are unenforceable, or serve only to harass the law-abiding with little effect on criminals, such laws make a mockery of the concept of laws.

Laws that actually have real benefits (murderers are hunted down and caged for decades, stop signals contribute efficient order, medicines actually have to contain what they say they do, etc.) are indeed worthy, and why humans form governments: to further civilization.
Laws that "feel good" but really do nothing but harm those intended protection only serve to enhance disorder, oppression, frustration, and criminalization (maybe not now, but inevitably) and tear down civilization.

Next time you go to buy a gun, pretend it comes up "misdemeanor domestic violence", "sexual predator", "system down indefinitely", etc. - instead of assuming it will work perfectly, consider what happens when your records get crossed with someone else*, a would-be tyrant starts abusing it**, data gets scrambled***, or the system simply stops functioning****.

* - Remember Senator Ted Kennedy couldn't fly recently because his name somehow got linked to the no-fly list?
** - NYC and other cities used registries of "assault weapons" to hunt down owners after AWs were banned there (ask about the anecdote).
*** - The BATFE has sworn, in court, under oath, that the NFA database (machineguns etc.) has a 50% error rate.
**** - As previously noted, PA will shut down all background checks next week. No good reason ("upgrades", IT types know better).

 

[cpttango30]

Here are my thoughts on this. Is the background check a good thing? Yes it is. It keeps the criminals out of the gun stores. We all know that if someone wants a gun they will get one, weather they buy it from a guy on the street or steal it out of a home. We all know this but, the other side does not know this. I do not know why they do not know this but they do not.

I am not sure how many of you ever have problems with the instant check system. All I know is mine is never instant. My ssn is 6xx-xx-xxxx there is a guy out there with the SSN of 5xx-xx-xxxx all of the X are exactly the same numbers. This person for what ever reason deserted from the NAVY. That is why I think I get flagged every time I go to purchas a gun. the last three have taken 2 days, 1 day, 3 hours.

We are not giving up anything by particapating in the National Instant Check system.

If we did not have this then the anti's would be going after all the gun stores because they were selling to whom ever walked in the door. It does not bother me one bit. I do agree that it could be better, where there is a credit card like machine where the dealer can swipe your drivers lic. and pull up in a matter of a few seconds everything they need to know.

 

[Gord]

or serve only to harass the law-abiding with little effect on criminals

Right - but the NICS has the very real effect of barring ineligible criminals from legally buying firearms.

The argument put forth in the OP was for background checks themselves, unfettered by government screwups such as waiting periods or confiscation - the OP clearly states that for the sake of argument, records would not be kept. You are spot-checked based on name, driver's license #, SSN or whatever else - and then forgotten about.

I'm fine with that. The benefits to society at large far outweigh, to me, the con that I may, by small chance, be confused for someone else and have to sort out the error over the course of a few minutes, hours or days.

I'm not happy that records are kept of my purchases. I'm not happy that the government may use those records to move against me, but if they do they will be made to realize that it carries grievous consequences in one form or another. But I am fully content with the background check itself.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

. . . barring ineligible criminals . . .

Explain to me why it is that "ineligible criminals" are loose on the streets?

NICS didn't fix a problem that we had.

It fixed a postulated plausible problem and created a whole new black market segment.

What we really need are mandatory DUI checkpoints along the most heavily traveled commuter routes.

For the children.

 

[M_Olson]

I'm fine with that. The benefits to society at large far outweigh, to me, the con that I may, by small chance, be confused for someone else and have to sort out the error over the course of a few minutes, hours or days.

so numerous law abiding citizens being hassled for attempting to exercise their rights, outweighs criminals going down the street to johnny instead of into the store?

would you say the same if these kind of restrictions were placed on your first amendment rights? or as someone earlier said, your third amendment rights? dont try to say that guns are more dangerous or w/e, cause that is irrelevant.

 

[czbegenner]

There are some people who because of there temper should not own a weapon of any sort.You got hot headed people who can't control themself
in a situation.But i feel that background checks are ok as long as they don't
get real stupid with them.IS the goverment prying into personal lives or what?
But it's too many times the wrong people have weapons.What i feel is happening is there making it harder for Law abidding people to have the right
to defend themself aganist crime.I was reading in one of my Law magazines
about a guy who killed a young woman because of the system allowing him to slip threw the cracks.It happen in Phoenix the young lady was 18 years old.
The guy had multiple convictions for domestic violence,drugs,burglaries. so background checks are ok,but don't keep the law abiding people hands tied.
I feel that the goverment sometimes goes overboard with things and the good people suffer.

 

[Gord]

Explain to me how an instant check, with no recording of purchases, is a hassle. You may need to read the OP again; we're not talking about NICS in its current iteration, strictly.

Even if we were, in most states it is indeed instant - where's the hassle there?

And, yes - your mileage may vary, but as I've said, the local alley-rapist not being able to go into any given shop and walk out with a legally-purchased gun is a fair trade-off, to me, for having to take a few extra moments for a phone call.

Arfin, I'm not sure where you're going with the criminals - it's late and I'm tired, indulge me.

I also think a better analogue would be "what we really need are breathalyzers preinstalled in every car." And - assuming the reliability rate is up to par - I find it hard to come up with any meaningful objection to that. But, again, it's late, I'm not thinking deeply on the concept, and given some reflection tomorrow my attitude may change. "From the hip," though, there's my current standing.

I'm not sure when NICS went into effect, but I find it hard to believce that prior to the background check system, criminals weren't purchasing firearms in violation of Federal law (if there even was Federal law prior to NICS - excuse my ignorance). They may not have committed many crimes with them - and convict/firearm privelege is the subject of a whole 'nother thread - but I'm sure it was still fairly commonplace.

There are some people who because of there temper should not own a weapon of any sort.

Now, there's something I don't agree with. Those with temper and anger-management issues probably shouldn't be around guns - but there is no way to determine whether someone possesses those qualities while still maintaining any modicum of privacy.

 

[rbernie]

Right - but the NICS has the very real effect of barring ineligible criminals from legally buying firearms.

Of course - but it doesn't stop them from buying them. It only stops them from doing it LEGALLY.

This is like the argument that stipulates how much more civilized country X is because they don't have as many gun deaths as the US. Well, of course not - Country X banned guns from private ownership. Nevermind that the actual violent crime rate in Country X is higher - just focus on the fact there are fewer GUN deaths and ignore the big picture, please. Notice also that there are still gun deaths, because not being able to LEGALLY buy something never actually eliminated its purchase.

So yes - it is a correct statement that NICS checks stops The Bad Guys from buying guns legally. But I defy anyone to show me how it stops The Bad Guys from buying guns.

 

[Gord]

It would logically follow that it makes it at least somewhat more difficult for them to do so, as far as having to find "a guy" (and presumably paying a scalper's fee) versus walking into the neighborhood Mom-and-Pop.

I'm not at all arguing that it's effective in preventing gun purchases among criminals, but some is better than none, right?

 

[M_Olson]

but some is better than none, right?

no. it depends on what you are giving up for that "some". multiple, large negatives have been pointed out multiple times in this thread already.

 

[Gord]

I've got... "the .gov keeps records on us" which sucks, but is irrelevant in the context of this thread per the OP's qualifiers.

And "sometimes it, like, takes a while" which I imagine happens little enough, to few enough people, that it doesn't outweigh the benefit of forcing criminals to find other, more elusive sources for their guns.

 

[jungleroy]

I Dislike background checks

I remember buying firearms before the background checks, I also concealed before it was a licensable option in my state. I don't commit crimes, and I always try to stay on the high road.
Even now I think background checks should go away, they don't arrest criminals that they turn down. They just turn them down, I have witnessed it in more than one shop. That tells me that the background checks serve no purpose, other than making a list of what is purchased by whom.
I dislike the thought of one day having armed people trying to disarm me and my fellow countrymen.
I now mainly try to trade or buy from private parties.
I even realize it as a mistake paying for a CCW, a right I allready had, that is recognized in our constitution.
I also thank you for asking about what I and the others here think on the subject.

 

[M_Olson]

I've got... "the .gov keeps records on us" which sucks, but is irrelevant in the context of this thread per the OP's qualifiers.

And "sometimes it, like, takes a while" which I imagine happens little enough, to few enough people, that it doesn't outweigh the benefit of forcing criminals to find other, more elusive sources for their guns.

taken from post #167:

Background checks only stop:
1) disallowed individuals from getting a gun in a retail establishment
2) law abiding citizens with screwed up database records from getting a gun immediately. These individuals eventually get their rights restored, but (in the meantime) the Constitution has been torn asunder as 30,000 people a year lose their 2nd Amendment rights for months or years.

If we were quartering U.S. troops in 30,000 homes a year... wouldn't there be an outcry?
If 30,000 homes a year were illegally searched... wouldn't there be an outcry?
You get my drift.

30,000 is no insignificant number, especially when the infringement is on a constitutionally guaranteed right...that happens to say it "shall not be infringed".

 

[czbegenner]

But this is because of who we vote into office,The type of people in our
congress,senate,white house.Its because we have forgotten the it's the people who can change anything.Now yes i understand the points that were
made,and yes the bad guy can get a weapon without going to the gun store
but the point i was making was we need to make sure that we as a people
are holding the ones we VOTE into office to there word.yes the people with anger problems should not be around guns,BUT THE POINT IS THEY DO GET HOLD OF GUNS./WEAPONS.Then the people we voted into office go on a rampage and come up with all these rules.To tie the hands of us good law abiding people.This is the point i was trying to make,if i said it wrong???? Well
I am ONLY HUMAN(TO BE HUMAN IS TO ERROR)

 

[2RCO]

Arfin,

I see your point however it may be stretched. There are alot of people that shouldn't be driving in all honesty and something should be done about it. There are alot people having kids that shouldn't don't get me started. Background checks make the antis feel safer and keep them a bit off our case. It is one of the best responses we have to their doomsday scenarios and unfounded fears.

I just don't see the horrible violation of my rights or the Gun store personnel from a 2 second check to make sure I am not a felon. The ATF can come to my house and look at my whole damn collection if they want--I have nothing to hide. Now if they publish what I own or if they keep records of my purchases then yes that would Piss me Off--that's a privacy issue.

I bet several of you probably didn't realize but any time you open a bank account get a loan or open a credit card you go through 2 background checks.
1. Trans Union, Equifax, or Experian--The credit bureaus--or Chex systems for opening accounts.
2. The federal OFAC list to make sure you aren't a terrorist or a money launderer. ---I don't see anyone standing up and going Damn you interfering with my civil liberties because you need these services.

 

[fantacmet]

Can't vote on this one, as I can't vote for both. The background check is a double edge sword, yer screwed either way, and the politicians know it, and use it to their advantage. It's a double edged sword for a reason.